The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and mere suspicion or weak evidence cannot sustain a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. The Appellant, namely Madan Kanhar @ Mitu, faced the trial on the charges under Sections 302 /379 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, hereinafter referred to as “ IPC ”) before the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani, in Sessions Trial No. 94 of 2005, wherein, the learned Court found him guilty for the offence under Section 302 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. He was, however, not found guilty u/s 379 and was acquitted therefrom.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased had gone to collect firewood in the Talemba Hill area, but did not return home. Her mother namely Kaina Jani, P.W.2, went in search of her and found her lifeless body in the jungle. The body had visible injuries on the head, scapular region and legs, and her ear lobes were found lacerated. A missing ornament (‘kanafasa’) further supported the suspicion of foul play. Around 10-12 days before her death, the deceased had a quarrel with Panamati, in whose house the Appellant resided. The informant, P.W.1, reported the matter to the police, leading to the registration of Khajuripada P.S. Case No. 24/05, vide Ext.1, and the investigation commenced.

3. In course of the investigation, the I.O. visited the spot, prepared the spot map vide Ext. 13, and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, collected blood-stained earth and sample earth from the spot. The I.O. detected an axe lying two feet away from the dead body, stained with blood and with strands of hair attached. The axe (M.O.VI) was seized as the suspected weapon of offense. The deceased’s saree, blouse, and other clothing were also seized. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination and the report (Ext.6) confirmed that the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from antemortem injuries. The Accused- Appellant was arrested on 13.04.2005, and while he was in police custody, he voluntarily disclosed that he had washed his blood-stained clothes in a tank and hidden them in Panamati’s house. Upon leading the police and witnesses to the location, the Appellant gave recovery of his half-shirt and napkin, both of which were later found to have human bloodstains. The seized exhibits, including the weapon, were sent to S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar for chemical examination. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the Appellant to face trial.

4. The case of the defence is one of complete denial and false accusations.

5. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all. P.W.1 being the informant, P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased, P.Ws. 3, 4 and 8 are the seizure witness, P.W.5 is the alleged eyewitness, P.W.6 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination, P.W.7 is a police constable, P.W.9 is witness to the leading to discovery, P.Ws. 10 and 11 are the co-villagers of the deceased and the Appellant, P.W.12 is the agnatic cousin of the deceased and a co-villager, and finally P.W.13 is the I.O.

6. The learned trial Court leaning to the side of prosecution, believing the evidence of P.W.5 in particular, found the prosecution to have proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and held the Appellant guilty and convicted him awarding sentence as described above.

7. Mr. Jambeswar Pati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, argues that the case of the prosecution suffers from significant inconsistencies and lacks the certainty required to establish the gu